The End Does Not Justify The Means

I think I’m an open-minded person because I accept whatever criticism you throw in my way, as long as you don’t disrespect me in doing so. I tend to favor what is morally right (not just being right) and that it will benefit the many and not for a chosen few. I always have a strong opinion in many things especially politics but I often distance myself in making comments because of work related ethics. I also believe that “the end does not justify the means”, it is not just possible to do good by doing something that is essentially wrong.

A prime example of it is the continued defiance of Malacañang when the Supreme Court declared the Disbursement Acceleration Program as unconstitutional in a unanimous vote (13-0). The thirteen justices declared that “cross-border transfers of savings of the executive department to offices OUTSIDE the executive department” and “the withdrawal of unobligated allotment from the implementing agencies and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings in the General Appropriations Act”, under DAP is unconstitutional.

And for that, the Aquino administration filed a motion for reconsideration and will appeal the verdict before the High Tribunal citing that Malacañang did not violate the law in implementing DAP. Despite that the Constitution says otherwise, I do agree somehow in their stands that it is necessary to correct flaws in the budget system and to fast track government’s priority projects. That is laudable, I would say. In fact, the Supreme Court even recognized the positive results of DAP based on a study conducted by the World Bank for its benefits to the Philippine economy.

But then, (I know you are waiting for it) the rule that I mentioned above still apply because people will use it to justify their bad actions based on the good things that they have done. And I think that is what’s happening right now. I agree also with what the Freedom From Debt Coalition said “that President Aquino gave the Filipino people a flimsy excuse that it was necessary to expedite the release of savings because waiting for the end of the year would be too late”. Because there is always a legal and constitutional way of asking a supplemental budget without usurping the power of the Congress. So any method of reaching a particular goal that is inherently wrong is not excusable even if you acted in good faith.

10 thoughts on “The End Does Not Justify The Means

  1. Riz Tomacruz

    SC admit in itself that DAP help boost our economy. I wanted to believe so. However, I am more convinced that if our budget via GAA has been used “accordingly”, we DO NOT NEED DAP at all. Given the “powers” of the President to use or “generate savings” (even at the cost of hindering a project) – even he acted on good faith – I am more and more afraid our beloved country won’t ever get away from this crooked system.

    1. sir rob Post author

      I somehow believe on what you said Riz and we will continue to see the same thing (if you know what I mean) with different name.

  2. Fernando Lachica

    Before, programs and projects of the government were taking too long to materialize because of too many government officials to approve before it’s executed. The President applied DAP for this purposes but it’s unconstitutional according to SC and when this PDAF were opened up to the public. If it’s illegal Pnoy must conform to the SC rulings and move on to finish his term of office.

  3. Aldous Calubad (@team_aldous)

    Nobody should use the good things they have done to justify their bad actions. That is a shame.

  4. ralph

    i agree, there is always a better way for everything. i am still hopeful that the government could formulate a better way of using the fund for the good of the majority. Yahweh bless.

  5. Janine

    As the president who enforces the law, he should be the number one person to respect the decision of the supreme court.. he seems to act in a rebellious way.

  6. Leira Pagaspas

    The SC’s role is to interpret the law. By way of their decisions, extensions and details of the law are established. To respect the Supreme Court as an institution has a corresponding obligation to respect its decisions. If we have no confidence in SC Justices, and we find their decisions without merit, there is a recourse to impeach them. But in the case of DAP, the decision is unanimous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *